Posted on 06/17/2010 9:34:08 AM PDT by editor-surveyor
When "Smart Growth" and "Sustainable Development" washed across the nation in the 1990s, property-rights activists were overwhelmed. Visioning councils sprang up everywhere, and towns, cities, counties and regions soon had "Vision 2020 Action Plans" that transformed normal communities into "Sustainable Communities," and, for the most part, land owners never knew what hit them.
A common element in this transformation is the creation of what is usually called a "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." This plan, when approved by the governing authority, becomes the basis for bureaucrats to virtually control the use of private property.
The definition of property ownership includes the notion that the owner has control of the property and may use the property as the owner sees fit, subject to damages only if his use of his own property causes damage to a neighbor, provable in court. Armed with comprehensive plans, however, bureaucrats control the use of private property. Bureaucrats, not the property owner, decide whether the owner may use his property as he wishes – or not.
When Houston County, Minn., adopted its comprehensive plan,
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com:80 ...
BTW, your “clipboard” appears to be working.
When zoning is 100% at the local level one can vote with his feet and pocketbook to go to the neigbhoring locality. That is an essential part of democracy.... letting us vote. And many of us do precisely that. Mineapolis zoned to favor one way, St Paul a different way. The same way with KC MO and KC KS. The same most everywhere. Some states were right-to-work and some were union shops.
The more the municipal codes are made uniform, the less choice individuals have. We move from a democracy where we can vote to a tyranny of the self-appointed elite.
Unfortunately our own conservative friends are logically inconsistent on this issue. Bloomington-Normal housing market has a need for student housing near ISU. The private market is seeking to fulfill that need by building private housing on private property in a way that endangers nobody. But it is the conservative home owners who oppose 2020 plans are the ones opposing others private property rights.
Meanwhile, the central planners sit back and laugh as the private housing developers are forced into the arms of the central planners by the logically inconsistent NIMBY conservatives.
Don’t get your drift. I’m the one who hears the appeals and the groups of NIMBYs. I try to apply the existing law in a manner that protects private property rights, but mitigates use in a manner that protects the general public from substantial injury to their health, safety and peace. It’s not easy.
Socialist tyranny was never ment to be easy!
Government doesn’t belong in residential property issues, period.
Planning by govt agencies should be limited to providing arterial infrastructure. Outside of that, only the courts should be involved, when necessary.
.
“Meanwhile, the central planners sit back and laugh as the private housing developers are forced into the arms of the central planners by the logically inconsistent NIMBY conservatives.”
.
Amen!
.
I suppose that is easy to say until there is only one ingress and eagress into a development and the fire trucks need it. Or the four story apartment building is built next to residences and there is no parking. Or residences are used as summer rentals and the occupancy rate and noise of college kids partying is creating a mess. Or the sewer treatment plant will not have the capacity to serve the new development. Just little things like that.
Nothing you say is relevant to the topic.
The most desireable towns, with the highest property values are those that were done before government tampering in the planning process.
Government planners are absolute idiots.
.
The topic is land planning. I have a community with septic tanks and wells on city sized lots. That was done before planning was in vogue. We have several homes that can no longer be occupied becuase the septic system failed and there is no place to put a new one on the lot without messing with a neighbor’s well. That is why we now have minimum lot sizes at 2 1/2 acres.
“The topic is land planning”
.
Negative!
The topic is people control and the over-reach of tyrannical government.
Your 2 1/2 acre lots will not survive “Agenda 21” and “Smart Growth” because the ‘plan’ is to crush people in at 40 persons per acre minimum (those will be the ‘upscale’ dwellings).
Keep your eyes closed at your own peril.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.